Replies

However, this discussion has become about Rick Perry, which the article does not name, yet everyone obviously believes is implied.

I more than implied by my posts after the article because I believe Lowry's OpEd speaks to the statesman Rick Perry is.

So then the question is do you agree with the premise of the article that career politicians are the best candidates for high office?

Lowry doesn't say career politicians are the best, he said the BEST (statesman who have honed their craft) politicians.

That is the argument the article makes.

Read the title and then read the article again with the title in mind.

I have read the title and the article repeatedly, but I read it again as you requested. How you can read this and come away with the sense that the author is saying anything other than career politicians are more qualified than businessmen for high office is beyond me. He does not use the word 'statesmen' as you did. He does not qualify successful three term governors. He even goes so far as to imply that Corzine was a failure because he was a businessman and Christie is a success because he is a politician. That logic requires you to suspend all other factors like Corzine is a raging crony socialist.

You are the one who has hitched Rick Perry to this delusional article which under normal circumstances would require a Barf! tag on Freerepublic.

Amid the slings of outrageous fortune, the politician learns how to inspire and persuade, how to avoid unnecessary minefields and pick his fights, when to accommodate his opponents and when to confront them, how to build a coalition and keep it together. A businessman might have similar challenges, but they aren’t played out in the public arena in the context of a balky, democratic political system that rarely moves on the basis of one man’s orders.

I understand that someone who has never held political office will have his handicaps, and they are large. Government is completely unlike any business in the world. I think it's common sense that governors are the closest in experience to the Presidency.

That being said, There are certainly drawbacks to spending 27 straight years in elected office. People who have made a career pandering for votes for the next election and spend every waking moment grasping for power are destroying this country. Can you prove Rick Perry isn't like all those others? Did he vote for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan? Did he vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988 after Al Gore dropped out? Was the Democrat Party in Texas from 1984 to 1989 more conservative than the Republican Party of Texas in the same time period? Were the ideals, goals and plans of the Democrat Party in the middle of Ronald Reagan's term more conservative than the Republicans? Or was he a Democrat because it was the most likely path to win and keep elected office? Why did he switch parties? Did he have a massive conservative epiphany in 1989? After eight years of watching Ronald Reagan did he finally, one year after campaigning for Al Gore, figure out that republicans were more conservative than Democrats? Or was he switching horses when he saw his state, or more importantly his district, turning Republican? Right after becoming a Republican he ran for state wide office, rather than stay in the minority in the State Legislature. Coincidence? Maybe. But it's a pattern followed by thousands of career politicians.

As I told you before, Governor Perry is my second choice at this time. Romney, Huntsman and Johnson are the only other governors and are completely unqualified because of their positions. Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann have zero executive experience. That makes Perry #2 on the list. But he walks like a career politician and quacks like a career politician. And unlike the author of the article I don't think that's a compliment.